Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1887-02-23
The Murkrille enquirer.
YORKVILLE, s. G.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY %, 1887.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY %, 1887.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION. s
On the 18th instant decision was filed in
the Supreme Court of this State to the effect
that trial justices have no jurisdiction in
cases of petit larceny any more than they
ing to this decision, every person charged
with petty larceny and brought before a
trial Justice will, if the evidence is sufficient,
be sent to Jail to await trial in the Court Of
General Sessions, unless a bond is given.
The iails, of course, will soon be overstock-
ed. The following is the decision:
The State Of South CarolinamIn a. TT the Supreme
| Court-November Term, 18S6-The State, re-
spondent, VS.. Robert Jenkins, appellant
OPINION-sIMPsON, C. j.
The appellant was indicted for perjury,
charged to have been committed by him in
q previous prosecution against him for petit
larceny before trial justice. The Judge
was requested t. -harge that trial justice
had no Jurisdiction in cases of petit larceny,
and therefore that perjury could not be COM
mitted in such case.
This request was refused, Whereupon the
defendant was convicted.
The only question in the appeal is, was it
error for the Judge to refuse appellants re-
quest, which raises the question whether or
| not trial justices have Jurisdiction in cases
Section IS, Article I, of the Constitution,
provides that justices of the peace, or other
officer authorized by law, shall
! have jurisdiction in all cases less than felo.
nv where the punishment does not exceed
fine of hundred dollars, or imprison-
ment for thirty days, and that such offences
shall be summarily tried by them. \ 4
There is no doubt that a trial justice falls
under the terms "other officer authorized
by law" and that he has all the powers
conferred by this section of the Constitution.
State vs.. Fillebrown, 2 S. c., 404. It is ap-
parent too, that this section confers upon
| him Jurisdiction in all offences under felo.
ny where the punishment does not EXCEED
that mentioned above.
Section 2,498, General Statutes, declares
that larceny of goods below the
value Of twenty dollars shall be misde-
meanor and considered petit larceny. we
suppose the previous prosecution before the
trial Justice was for larceny of goods be-
low the value Of twenty dollars. 1t was,
therefore, a misdemeanor, and consequent
ly less than felony, and to that extent hav-
ing one of the elements necessary to the
Jurisdiction of the trial justice.
| The other element, however, is equally
necessary, to wit, the character of the pun
ishment, the limit being thirty days i'm
prisonment and one hundred dollars fine.
is that the punishment of petit larceny !?
There seems to be no punishment, strange
to say, affixed to this offence by our Statute.
Section 2,49S, supra, describes the offence,
to wit, the stealing of goods below
the value of twenty dollars, and declares
that if considered to be misdemeanor and
petit larceny, but omits punishment
Nor have we found any other Act aftiX-
ing punishment thereto. Under these cir
cumstances we must look to the common
law for the punishment.
Misdemeanors at common law are punish
able by fine and imprisonment, or both, ac-
cording tothe degree: l Russell on Crimes,
page As. But the limit is not fixed. So
that there is no express law either found in
our Acts of Assembly or in the common
law which limits the punishment of this
offence to fine of hundred dollars and
imprisonment for thirty days. On the con-
trary the State VS.. Williams, 13 S. c., IL,
expressly declares that it is not so limited,
and on that account that case holds that the
Court of General Sessions has jurisdiction,
overruling the case Of the State VS.. Harper,
6 S. c., AGA, which held that the Court of
General Sessions had no jurisdiction in petit
larceny, the jurisdiction being exclusively
in Courts of trial justices.
Il,
which we have seen is the case from an ex-
animation of both the State and common
law, and which, as we have said above, has
been expressly so decided in the case of the
State VS.. Williams, supra, we do not see
how trial justices can have any jurisdiction,
as the second element necessary to such
jurisdiction is wanting. They certainly
cannot take jurisdiction under Article l.,
Section 10, of the Constitution, as the juris-
fc
pressly upon the fact that the judgment
does not exceed the limit mentioned.
Article ", Section Is, of the Constitution,
confers on the Courts of General Sessions
exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal
cases (which shall not be otherwise pro-
vided by law" Now when the Constitu-
ton was adopted with these two sections in
it, inasmuch as justices of the peace or other
officers authorized by law could have juris-
dction only in cases where the punishment
was limited, as specified in Article l, Sec
ton 19, and inasmuch as the punishment
of petit larceny was not thus limited, the
jurisdiction in petit larceny twas not other
wise provided by law" and consequently
under Article ~, Section Is, the Court of
General Sessions had exclusive jurisdiction
Has that jurisdiction been lost since the
adoption of the Constitution? 1t tcould only
have been lost by some provision of law
enacted since the adoption of the Constitu-
-tion conferring jurisdiction upon some 9th
er Court, because Article ~, Section Is,
provides that the Court of General Sessions
Shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all GRIM
inal cases (which shall not be otherwise
provided by law"
Has there been such provision: If the
General Assembly has since limited the
punishment of petty larceny as mentioned
in Article II, Section 10, they, under the
language of the Act, would have conferred
exclusive jurisdiction upon trial justices
and consequently would have ousted The
jurisdiction of the General Sessions, as by
such Act punishment in such cases would
have been "otherWise provided by law"
But no such Act has been passed, and be-
cause no such Act has been passed this
Court decided, in the State VS.. Williams,
that the Court of General Sessions still has
jurisdiction.
Section S26 of the General Statutes, how
ever, expressly confers Jurisdiction in cases
of petit larceny upon trial justices, notWith-
standing the fact that the punishment has
never been limited to fine of $500 and inn
prisonment to thirty days. If this Act is of
force it has certainly enlarged the jurisdic-
ton of Trial Justice Courts beyond its con-
stitutional provisions. Can this be done ?
It might be that it would be competent for
the General Assembly to confer incidental
powers, and perhaps additional duties upon
a Court organized under the Constitution,
besides those mentioned therein, but it
could hardly enlarge it's powers as to the
matters for which it was expressly constl-
! tuted Here the Trial Justice Courts have